Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

For the New Anti-Choice Movement, It's All About the Men

By Sarah Blustain, The Nation. Posted January 18, 2008.


The antiabortion movement has found a new face to exploit for political gain. And it's male.
m4l.dudes
Advertisement

Pity the man who conceived four babies with four women and suffered anxiety attacks and nightmares after all four, with his consent, were aborted. Pity the man who saw his soon-to-be-born baby on an ultrasound and instantly came to believe that he "had killed two of my own kids" through abortion. Pity the man who abused alcohol after his girlfriend aborted. Pity the man who suffered a nervous breakdown, depression, psychosis and nearly suicide after his girlfriend had an abortion despite his pleas.

And pity these men who, wittingly or not, are allowing their pain to be co-opted for political gain. Whatever the cause of their suffering, it is real and they deserve support. But they are also the new face of the antiabortion movement: Post-Abortion Syndrome--for men. In conferences and counseling, they're being wrapped in the fuzzy blankets of men's healing, but behind these men and their stories are the same crackpot research, coercive counseling and policy-by-anecdote that have defined the antiabortion movement's tactical emphasis on women's suffering after abortion. It's a maxim among the antichoice crowd these days that there are "two victims of abortion"; the men's PAS movement wants to take that to three.

A casual prochoice activist might dismiss this movement out of hand. After all, politically speaking there's no great constituency for men's PAS. The men's rights movement--which fights to improve men's standing in custody, child support and fatherhood-related issues, on which they say the law favors women--doesn't particularly embrace men's PAS: men's rights advocates are divided on abortion, and besides, some say, the pain of losing a child to abortion simply doesn't measure up to the pain of losing one's born children. Plus, the Supreme Court has definitively told men, including husbands, that they have no rights when it comes to abortion, which leaves antichoice activists no judicial openings to revive, for instance, spousal notification laws.

Still, it's clear that men's PAS is a syndrome whose moment has come. The first conference dealing with men's pain after abortion was held in San Francisco last fall, and the National Right to Life Committee included men's PAS in its annual convention last summer. Many counseling centers dealing with women's postabortion suffering now include resources for men, while activist groups are collecting men's testimonies about their postabortion suffering for use in the courts.

This isn't all just coincidence, and it's not all about healing. Post-Abortion Syndrome has rocked the antiabortion world. It has given new humanity to a movement that even a decade ago seemed locked in violence and lacking in empathy. More important, by blaming abortion for divorce and child abuse, depression and drug use, sex addiction and suicide, it has given conservatives a very distinct culprit in the disintegration of American family values--and another argument for ending the thirty-five-year reign of Roe v. Wade.

Time was, fighting abortion was about the unborn: think "pro-life," and images of clinic protesters and posters of fetuses come to mind. But the softer side of the movement has been growing, embodied first and foremost in the argument that abortion hurts women. "Abortion hurts women" was a major rallying cry in the effort to ban abortion in South Dakota and other states, and in numerous informed-consent legislative efforts. Most recently, it is the target of "scientific" investigation by Missouri Governor Matt Blunt's Task Force on the Impact of Abortion on Women, convened in October and made up of abortion foes only.

In a coup for PAS advocates, Justice Anthony Kennedy echoed their argument in the Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart decision, which upheld the "partial birth" abortion ban. "Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision...[which] some women come to regret," he wrote, not specifying but clearly referring to the assumptions of devastating harm. "In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence," he argued, "the State's interest in respect for life is advanced" by disclosing "the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion." Oddly, Kennedy asserted that not just pregnant women but everyone--"the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole"--would benefit from such disclosure. And one didn't sense late-term was his only concern: while acknowledging the dearth of "reliable data" regarding abortion, Kennedy signaled that if faced with better evidence that the procedure hurts women, he might give it a second look.

The problem, of course, is that Post-Abortion Syndrome, as the mixture of purported symptoms has become known, does not exist. As a disease, it is the bastard child of post-traumatic stress syndrome, which officially became a psychological disorder in 1980. PAS proponents claim that many women--maybe epidemic numbers of women--who have had abortions experience guilt, shame, lowered self-esteem, insomnia, nightmares, flashbacks, anger toward men, sexual dysfunction, depression and even suicidal thoughts or attempts; to cope, these women often turn to alcohol or drugs or sexual promiscuity; marriages often fall apart. Activists also claim a strong association between abortion and child abuse: willingness to harm the unborn, the logic goes, leads to a willingness to harm the born.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: reproductive justice, pro-choice, pro-life, abortion

Sarah Blustain is deputy editor of The American Prospect.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wear
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Jan 18, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
rubbers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pity the Men...Right
Posted by: Kym525 on Jan 18, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read an article on this is the L.A. Times. Most of the men were irresponsible cads, including one who was so cowardly that he placed a $200.00 check in his then girlfriend's door and walked out of her life. Another impregnated FOUR women and walked away. Yet these are the same men who talk about suffering. Not a single one of them behaved like MEN at the time their girlfriends/wives got pregnant. They didn't try to make things right at the beginning. They weren't willing to put aside their aspirations (as women are always expected to do). More importantly, they didn't even bother to use condoms (which were available at the time and have been around since the 1500's and perhaps earlier).

Pity the men hell. I say, pity the women they left behind all alone to make that life-altering decision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» here here Posted by: meetmeineleusis
Double Standard
Posted by: Crazy H on Jan 18, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the women had decided to carry the children to term, the men would have been expected to love and care for the child for the rest of its life.

But if the woman decides to abort, he's not supposed to care one whit.

He's got no say in the matter whatsoever, and yet is supposed to show the appropriate emotion depending on what decision the woman makes.

Tell me that's fair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Double Standard Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Double Standard Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Double Standard Posted by: E. Howe
» RE: Double Standard Posted by: caitlain
» RE: Double Standard Posted by: xennonette
» RE: Double Standard Posted by: lepidopteryx
I detect a hint of bias...
Posted by: SjrBoomz on Jan 20, 2008 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole article, and all the comments below it, seem as if they were directed completely from one perspective, with no weight given to views out of another lens. You can complain all you want about men being irresponsible, and many of them are.. but there are a hell of a lot of irresponsible women in the world too. We have all known someone who knows someone who was walked out on when she got pregnant. That's not right - but that has very little to do with the point in the fathers choice movement. There are also many men out there who have impregnated a woman, and were completely willing to raise the child and support the mother, but whose child was taken from them without their consent through abortion. Yes, it is the woman's body that the fetus is growing in, but it is the mans child just as much as it is hers and he deserves to have an equal say in whether or not that child is born.. so long as he is willing to parent it. A friend of mine had gotten his girlfriend of 2 years pregnant. When she told him of course he was scared, but he told her that he would like to raise the child - with or without her help. What did she do? ..went and got an abortion behind his back!! That's not right.. he was torn up for a long time, wondering what could have been of his child were it born. No person, man or woman, should have to wonder such things. Talk about fair.....

I am a self-proclaimed feminist, but unlike many women in this world, I am not willing to infringe on the rights of men in order to claim my own. You want women to be treated fairly? Start practicing what you preach first. Give men an equal say in areas that they have traditionally been mute. Unless you are willing to do that, do not call yourself a feminist, or an advocate of womens rights. Equal rights is what we say we strive for, and yet, along the journey we have infringed on the rights of men. I prefer not to be lumped in as a feminist with a bunch of hypocrites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I detect a hint of bias... Posted by: mr. joshua
» You have it backward Posted by: terradea42
Why Argue With A Bunch Of Male Haters
Posted by: Joe on Jan 21, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's your body. Don't have sex with a P.O.S. person who doesn't give a crap about you let alone any kids you may have. If a woman is in control of her own body she's also in control of who impregnates her.

But I don't expect male haters to get that. Keep blaming men (you may win the argument) but you won't solve any problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually Posted by: SparkyClinton
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Jan 22, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the politics of rape, which if you're too young to recognize was the title of a book back in the day. That is: Females should submit to males' domination or they're on their own and won't be protected from rape. Men who would deny women control of their own bodies seem to feel that when women are raped, by god they're gonna to stay raped! For the sexually frustrated--because no woman in her right mind would have one on a plate--it's "Wimps of the world, arise! Gotta have a woman to use." As long as decent men stay silent and do nothing, the scourge of male violence and the male urge to dominate will continue to trash women's lives. Which is what the so-called right to life movement is really all about: Male dominance/female subjugation, as promoted in all of today's mythologies, i.e., religions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]